Chapter 6 150 of the six train types were included in experiment 2. For our study, we have selected the noisiest train type plus the train type that is relevant for most engineers. Our strategy differs from that of other authors, such as Giguère et al. (2019) and Laroche et al. (2014), who consulted job content experts for making this selection. The current signal detection test was developed froman audiological viewpoint. Further evaluation with job content experts could give additional insight in the construct validity. Third, we retrospectively collected data from the auditory fitness for job assessments performed in the Amsterdam UMC, where it is standard procedure to perform the signal detection test in two trains. The use of retrospective data facilitated the data collection of the experiment. Moreover, the experiment was performed in a sample of engineers who had been referred for an auditory fitness for job assessment. Since the signal detection test ultimately aims to improve auditory fitness for job assessments of locomotive engineers, the generalizability of the study results is good. Finally, the laboratory paradigm used might have resulted in underestimating the effect of age, hearing impairment, and comprehension for attention. Conclusions Our findings support that the signal detection test has sufficient reliability and agreement in all but three driving conditions. Since six of the seven validity hypotheses were confirmed, the construct validity of the signal detection test is supported for assessing the ability to detect auditory warning signals in Dutch locomotive engineers. The results underpin the importance of evaluating the ability to detect auditory warning signals separately from other auditory tasks.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw